Headlines
Gujarat assembly again passes controversial anti-terror bill
Gandhinagar, March 31
Amid strong protests and
a walkout by the opposition Congress, the Gujarat legislative assembly
on Tuesday passed the controversial 12-year-old anti-terror and
anti-organised crimes bill for the fourth time.
The proposed law,
intended to combat terror and organised crimes in the state, has been
hanging fire since 2003 when it was propounded by then home minister
Amit Shah, now the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president, during the
tenure of former chief minister Narendra Modi, now the prime minister.
The
bill has always managed a smooth sailing in the assembly owing to the
ruling BJP's strong majority, but was not given assent by the president
thrice in the past.
It was sent back first by the then president
A.P.J. Abdul Kalam in 2004 during the tenure of the NDA's central
government headed by then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
The
amended version of the bill was also rejected in 2008 by then president
Pratibha Patil during the UPA-I government, and later by the state
governor, preventing it from becoming a law.
"This law is the
need of the hour. Not just terrorism, but even organised crimes need to
be dealt with firmly," Minister of State for Home Rajni Patel said in
the assembly while moving the bill on Tuesday.
Congress leader
Shaktisinh Gohil raised strong objections pointing out that despite
reservations from former presidents of India, no changes have been made
in the bill.
"The government is playing vote bank politics... It
has merely changed the nomenclature... The (bill) content remains
unchanged... The government has not even heeded to the technical issues
we have raised regarding the bill," Gohil said, staging a walkout from
the house.
Named the Gujarat Control of Terrorism & Organised
Crime Bill (GCTOC), it is designed on the lines of the stringent
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), and the new version
comes with some amendments.
However, it still vests too much
power with police, including authority to intercept phone calls with
recordings admissible as evidence in court, according to critics and
rights activists.
The other provisions include confessions made
before senior police officers as permissible evidence before courts.
This, activists warn, could result in custodial torture or coercion to
make statements which can be held against the suspects.
Another
provision allows custody of suspects for 30 days instead of the present
15 days, and if the public prosecutor seeks, police can get up to six
months (180 days) to file the charge sheet, up from the existing 90
days. This can pose immense harassment, warn critics.